[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56978-56981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27668]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. PS-107; Amdt. 192-87]
RIN 2137-AB50


Determining the Extent of Corrosion on Gas Pipelines

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule requires that when gas pipeline operators find 
harmful external corrosion on buried metallic pipelines that have been 
exposed, they must investigate further to determine if additional 
harmful corrosion exists in the vicinity of the original exposure. 
Further investigation can help determine the significance of the 
initial corrosion discovery. The new requirement may prevent accidents 
due to corrosion that might otherwise go undetected near an exposed 
portion of pipeline.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective November 22, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.M. Furrow at (202) 366-4559 or 
[email protected]. General information about RSPA's pipeline safety 
program can be obtained at http://ops.dot.gov.


[[Page 56979]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Whenever a gas pipeline operator learns that any portion of a 
buried metallic pipeline is uncovered, the operator is required to 
examine that portion for evidence of external corrosion, if the pipe is 
bare or has a deteriorated coating (49 CFR 192.459). In a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (54 FR 27041; June 27, 1989), RSPA proposed 
to amend this safety standard to require that when corrosion requiring 
remedial action is found, the operator must investigate further to 
determine the extent of the corrosion. The proposed rule did not 
specify the method or scope of further investigation.
    The proposed rule was in response to a rulemaking recommendation 
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) made after its 
investigation of a major gas pipeline accident that occurred February 
21, 1986, in Lancaster, Kentucky. As discussed in its report of the 
investigation (NTSB/PAR-87-01), NTSB found that the accident could be 
attributed to inadequate inspection of the pipeline when it was 
excavated some time before the accident. Although the operator's visual 
inspection showed corrosion potentially requiring remedial action, the 
inspectors did not look for corrosion adjacent to and below the portion 
of pipe that had been exposed. The location of the failure was only 
about one foot from the location of the last corrosion pit measured 
when the pipe was uncovered.
    The proposed rule also would conform Sec. 192.459 with 49 CFR 
195.416(e), the comparable hazardous liquid pipeline safety standard. 
Under this latter standard, if harmful corrosion is discovered on 
certain exposed hazardous liquid pipelines, the operator is required to 
investigate further to determine the extent of the corrosion.

Discussion of Comments

    RSPA received 31 written comments on the NPRM. Twenty-seven of the 
comments were from gas pipeline operators; two were from trade 
associations representing operators, the American Gas Association (AGA) 
and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA); one was 
from the Public Utility Commission of Oregon; and one was from NTSB.
    Many operators thought the proposed rule was reasonable. They said 
it was consistent with their standard operating practices.
    At the same time, other operators felt existing Sec. 192.459 
implies an obligation to investigate the extent of harmful corrosion, 
making the proposed rule redundant. We disagree, however, because of 
the difference between Sec. 192.459 and Sec. 195.416(e). The present 
wording of Sec. 192.459 does not explicitly require further 
investigation, while Sec. 195.416(e) does explicitly require further 
investigation. This difference in regulatory terms definitely weakens 
the argument that Sec. 192.459 implicitly requires further 
investigation.
    Only three commenters, all operators, opposed the proposed rule. 
One of these commenters thought the proposal was unnecessary because 
other part 192 standards adequately cover corrosion control. However, 
we think the Lancaster accident shows the need for the proposed rule. 
If the operator's inspectors had fully investigated the pipeline in the 
vicinity of the excavation, they could have discovered the harmful 
corrosion that led to the subsequent accident. Their failure to do so 
was not contrary to any other part 192 corrosion control standard.
    The second commenter said the proposal would discourage operators 
from exposing and inspecting pipelines. But considering the overriding 
need for excavations in maintaining or constructing buried pipelines, 
we doubt the proposed rule is likely to have a significant impact on 
excavation decisions. Moreover, we do not think excavation decisions 
have been inhibited by the comparable requirement of Sec. 195.416(e) to 
investigate the extent of harmful corrosion.
    The third commenter who opposed the proposed rule considered it 
ineffective because of the different approaches operators would take to 
comply with the rule. Yet the proposed rule was intentionally designed 
to permit varying approaches to compliance because of the different 
conditions that are encountered at excavation sites. Assuming each 
operator's approach is sufficient to determine the extent of harmful 
corrosion found at an excavation, the rule should be effective overall.
    The Public Utility Commission of Oregon commented that exposed pipe 
should be investigated further whenever any corrosion is observed, even 
if the corrosion does not need remedial action. Although the aim of 
this comment is increased safety, we do not think it would be sensible 
to require operators to explore beyond the original excavation unless 
harmful corrosion has been observed. Otherwise, there would be no 
reasonable expectation that any further investigation might be 
productive.
    Many commenters addressed the method of investigation that would be 
required for compliance. Most of these commenters, including AGA, liked 
the performance-type wording of the proposed rule, which would permit 
operators to use any appropriate method. A few operators, however, were 
concerned that the proposed rule inadequately defined the method of 
investigation. These commenters wanted the rule to specify particular 
methods, such as enlarging the excavation, digging potholes, searching 
corrosion and leak history records, or running an electrical survey, 
special leak survey, or in-line inspection. They argued that specifying 
methods would clarify the operator's discretion in choice of method and 
avoid potential disputes with government inspectors over whether 
continued excavation is mandatory.
    We anticipated this concern about inspection methods and, in the 
preamble of the NPRM, explained that additional excavation would not be 
mandatory. We said the proposed rule would permit buried pipe at or 
near an excavation to be examined either visually or by indirect 
methods. Nevertheless, in the final rule, we have slightly modified the 
wording of the proposed rule to avoid possible confusion on this point. 
The final rule states that indirect methods may be used as well as 
visual examination to carry out the further investigation. We have not 
listed particular methods since the alternatives to excavation and 
visual examination for determining the presence of corrosion are well 
known. Also, mentioning acceptable methods could unnecessarily limit 
the use of new technologies.
    A majority of the commenters addressed the scope of ``further 
investigation.'' About half of these commenters, including AGA, were 
pleased that the performance-type wording of the proposed rule would 
leave this decision to the operator's discretion. However, most of the 
remaining commenters were worried that the performance-type wording 
could be interpreted to require endless investigation of a buried 
pipeline for corrosion. To limit the investigation, these commenters 
suggested various changes to the proposed rule. One operator suggested 
the rule require only a reasonable effort. Several commenters, 
including INGAA, suggested restricting the investigations to corrosion 
that is ``within and continuous beyond the bounds of the exposed 
portion of the pipeline.'' Others suggested limiting the investigations 
to corrosion that is ``contiguous'' with the original

[[Page 56980]]

excavation. In contrast, NTSB urged us to require that investigations 
include the entire circumference of pipe irrespective of corrosion 
continuity.
    The issue of how far to carry an investigation of harmful corrosion 
found at an excavation was discussed in the NPRM. Mindful of the 
Lancaster accident, we were concerned that harmful corrosion located 
near the exposed portion of pipe would go undetected if operators 
investigated only for corrosion that adjoins corrosion observed on the 
exposed portion. However, recognizing the complexity of specifying the 
scope of investigation, we stated that the proposed rule would allow 
operators to use their own judgment on where to stop investigating for 
corrosion. Although many commenters, including AGA, supported this 
approach, we are sensitive to the position that the proposed rule could 
be interpreted to set in motion a seemingly endless search for harmful 
corrosion on some pipelines.
    We agree that only a reasonable effort should be required to find 
corrosion in the vicinity of an exposed, corroded pipe. Nonetheless, we 
believe the addition of language indicating that only a reasonable 
effort be made is unnecessary because performance language always 
requires a reasonable effort. This approach is consistent with common 
practice. The final rule language indicates that the operator shall 
investigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the exposed 
pipe to determine whether additional corrosion exists in the vicinity, 
as NTSB recommended in its comment.
    To further define the required scope of investigation, we have also 
modified the wording of the proposed rule to make it clear that the 
investigation is required only in the vicinity of the exposed area. 
This change is consistent with the purpose of the proposed rule, which 
was to prevent accidents due to the existence of harmful corrosion near 
the area of pipe exposure.
    A few commenters suggested that the final rule exclude distribution 
lines on the ground that their lower operating pressures pose less risk 
than transmission lines. Similarly, one commenter asked us to exclude 
transmission lines that operate below certain stress levels. These 
commenters apparently felt that further investigation of known areas of 
harmful corrosion is not warranted on low-pressure pipelines. We 
disagree. While corrosion may cause only a leak in a pipeline operating 
at low pressure as opposed to a rupture in a high-pressure pipeline, 
the damages resulting from a leak can be just as serious as from a 
rupture. For this reason, we have not excluded distribution lines or 
low-pressure transmission lines from the final rule.

Advisory Committee Review

    We presented the NPRM for consideration by the Technical Pipeline 
Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) at a meeting in Washington, DC on 
September 12, 1989. The TPSSC is RSPA's statutory advisory committee 
for gas pipeline safety. It has 15 members, representing industry, 
government, and the public, who are qualified to evaluate gas pipeline 
safety standards. The TPSSC voted unanimously to find the proposed rule 
technically feasible, reasonable, and practicable. The TPSSC's report 
of its consideration of the NPRM is available in the docket.
    In addition, in March of this year we invited the current members 
of the TPSSC to review and comment on the risk assessment information 
related to the proposed rule, including the estimated costs and 
benefits included in the Regulatory Evaluation. Of the 15 committee 
members, only three submitted substantive comments, and these are 
discussed in the Final Regulatory Evaluation.
    One member suggested that we publish another notice of proposed 
rulemaking in view of the long period since the initial notice. 
However, as stated above, we recently gave the TPSSC an opportunity to 
review and comment on the Regulatory Evaluation. We also offered the 
public an opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment of the 
NPRM (see further discussion below under the National Environmental 
Policy Act subheading). Considering these recent opportunities for 
additional comment and that the final rule essentially codifies 
standard industry practice, we feel there would be little or no new 
information to be gained from publishing another notice of proposed 
rulemaking.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    DOT does not consider this action to be a significant regulatory 
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not 
reviewed this rulemaking document. Also, DOT does not consider this 
action significant under its regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 
11034, February 26, 1979).
    We prepared a Final Regulatory Evaluation of the costs and benefits 
of this action, a copy of which is available in the docket. This 
Evaluation shows that because the final rule is in keeping with current 
practices of prudent operators, applies only in limited circumstances, 
and permits operators to decide both the method and extent of 
compliance effort, the impact of the final rule should be minimal.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), RSPA 
must consider whether a rulemaking would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this action 
is in keeping with current practices of prudent operators, applies only 
in limited circumstances, and permits operators to decide both the 
method and extent of their compliance effort, I certify that this 
rulemaking action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

C. Executive Order 12612

    This action would not have substantial direct effects on states, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of Government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612 (52 
FR 41685; October 30,1987), RSPA has determined that the final rule 
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation 
of a Federalism Assessment.

D. Executive Order 13084

    We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084, ``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.'' Because the final rule 
will not significantly or uniquely affect the Indian tribal 
governments, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive 
Order 13084 do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The final rule has no effect on the paperwork burden of operators 
subject to part 192. The action expands the scope of some inspections 
for which records are required by 49 CFR 192.491(c), without expanding 
the burden of that recordkeeping requirement.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or

[[Page 56981]]

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is 
the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the 
rule.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed the final rule for purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Only in limited 
circumstances will operators enlarge an area of exposed pipe to 
investigate the extent of corrosion. And non-invasive investigative 
techniques may be used where necessary to safeguard people and the 
environment.
    The public was given 30 days to comment on the Draft Environmental 
Assessment (64 FR 28136, May 25, 1999), and one comment was received. 
This comment requested that operators be allowed to use corrosion pigs 
to locate metal loss due to corrosion in lieu of expanding the 
excavation. This option is allowed under the final rule.
    We have determined that the final rule will not significantly 
affect the quality of the human environment.

H. Impact on Business Processes and Computer Systems

    Many computers that use two digits to keep track of dates will, on 
January 1, 2000, recognize ``double zero'' not as 2000 but as 1900. 
This glitch, the Year 2000 Problem, could cause computers to stop 
running or to start generating erroneous data. The Year 2000 Problem 
poses a threat to the global economy in which Americans live and work. 
With the help of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, 
federal agencies are reaching out to increase awareness of the problem 
and to offer support. We do not want to impose new requirements that 
would mandate business process changes when the resources necessary to 
implement those requirements would otherwise be applied to the Year 
2000 Problem.
    This final rule does not require business process changes or 
require modifications to computer systems. Because the final rule 
apparently does not affect the ability of organizations to respond to 
the Year 2000 Problem, we do not intend to delay the effectiveness of 
the rule changes.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192

    Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA amends 49 CFR part 192 as 
follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110, 
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

    2. Section 192.459 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 192.459  External corrosion control: Examination of buried 
pipeline when exposed.

    Whenever an operator has knowledge that any portion of a buried 
pipeline is exposed, the exposed portion must be examined for evidence 
of external corrosion if the pipe is bare, or if the coating is 
deteriorated. If external corrosion requiring remedial action under 
Secs. 192.483 through 192.489 is found, the operator shall investigate 
circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the exposed portion (by 
visual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine whether 
additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in the vicinity 
of the exposed portion.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 18, 1999.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-27668 Filed 10-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P